The Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The South African Experience

Background; The Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) is a successful treatment for endstage, symptomatic anteromedial osteoarthritis. This study reports the results of a cohort of consecutive cemented and cementless medial OUKAs from an independent center and aims to answer the following questions: what is the survival of OUKA in the hands of a nondesigner surgeon? Are there any differences in the survival of cementless and cemented OUKA? Are the failure modes any different with the cementless and cemented OUKA? Methods; One thousand one hundred twenty consecutive OUKAs were implanted in a single center for the recommended indications. Patients were prospectively identified and followed up. Survival was calculated with revision as the end point. Results; There were 522 cemented and 598 cementless implants. The mean follow-up was 8.3 years for cemented implants (range 0.5-17, standard deviation [SD] 2.9) and 2.7 years (range 0.5-7, SD 1.8) for cementless implants. The Oxford knee score improved from a preoperative mean of 22 (SD 8.1) to 40 (SD 7.9) at the last follow-up (P < .001). There were 59 failures requiring revision surgery, with a 5.3% cumulative revision rate. The most common reason for failure was progression of osteoarthritis in the lateral compartment, occurred in 26 cases (2.3%). The cumulative 10-year survival was 91% (95% confidence interval 87.3-95.2). Conclusion; The results of this prospective, consecutive case series from the African continent demonstrated that excellent results are achievable with the OUKA in independent centers if the correct indications and surgical technique are used

How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

Purpose Accurately predicting implant size for hemiarthroplasties offers an important contribution to theatre efficiency and patients’ intraoperative care. However, pre-operative sizing using templating of implants in hip fracture patients requiring a hemiarthroplasty is often difficult due to non-standard radiographs, absence of a calibration marker, poor marker placement, variable patient position, and in many institutions a lack of templating facilities. In patients who have previously undergone a hemiarthroplasty on the contralateral side, surgeons can use the contralateral implant size for pre-operative planning purposes. However, the accuracy of doing this has not previously been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using an in situ contralateral implant as a predictor of implant size on the contralateral side. Methods A retrospective review of our local neck of femur fracture (NOF) database was undertaken to identify patients who had bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty. Operative records were reviewed to establish the size of prostheses used at operation. Correlation, agreement, and reliability analysis were performed using the least squares, Bland–Altman plot, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) methods, respectively. Results Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had bilateral hemiarthroplasties. There was a difference in implant size used in 58% of cases. Of these 77% required a larger implant on the right. Implant sizes were within 1 mm of the contralateral side in 78% and within 2 mm in 91% of patients. However, in 9% of patients, there was a discrepancy greater than 2 mm with some cases having up to 6 mm discrepancy. Correlation coefficient was 0.83 and the ICC 0.90. Conclusions The findings in this study indicated that using the size of a contralateral implant can be used as a reliable indicator of head size in cases of bilateral hemiarthroplasty. However, the surgeon should remain cautious as there is a one in ten chance of there being a 3 mm or more difference in implant size

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and change measure for use in early recovery following hip or knee replacement

Background Hip and knee replacement are effective procedures for end-stage arthritis that has not responded to medical management. However, until now, there have been no validated, patient-reported tools to measure early recovery in this growing patient population. The process of development and psychometric evaluation of the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS), a 14-item patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) measuring health status, and the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Change Score (OACS) a 14-item measure to assess change during the first 6 weeks following surgery is reported. Patients and methods A five-phased, best practice, iterative approach was used. From a literature based starting point, qualitative interviews with orthopaedic healthcare professionals, were then performed ascertaining if and how clinicians would use such a PROM and change measure. Analysis of in-depth patient-interviews in phase one identified important patient-reported factors in early recovery which were used to provide questionnaire themes. In Phase two, candidate items from Phase One interviews were generated and pilot questionnaires developed and tested. Exploratory factor analysis with item reduction and final testing of the questionnaires was performed in phase three. Phase Four involved validation testing. Results Qualitative interviews (n = 22) with orthopaedic healthcare professionals, helped determine views of potential users, and guide structure. In Phase One, factors from patient interviews (n = 30) were used to find questionnaire themes and generate items. Pilot questionnaires were developed and tested in Phase Two. Items were refined in the context of cognitive debrief interviews (n = 34) for potential inclusion in the final tools. Final testing of questionnaire properties with item reduction (n = 168) was carried out in phase three. Validation of the OARS and OACS was performed in phase four. Both measures were administered to consecutive patients (n = 155) in an independent cohort. Validity and reliability were assessed. Psychometric testing showed positive results, in terms of internal consistency and sensitivity to change, content validity and relevance to patients and clinicians. In addition, these measures have been found to be acceptable to patients throughout early recovery with validation across the 6 week period. Conclusions These brief, easy-to-use tools could be of great use in assessing recovery pathways and interventions in arthroplasty surgery

Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study

Background Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision). Questions/purposes (1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD? Methods This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses. Results There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%). Conclusions Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study

Posterior Bearing Overhang Following Medial and Lateral Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Replacements

This study explores the extent of bearing overhang following mobile bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR) (Oxford Phase 3, Zimmer Biomet). The Oxford components are designed to be fully congruent, however knee movements involve femoral rollback, which may result in bearing overhang at the posterior margin of the tibial implant, with potential implications for; pain, wear, and dislocation. Movement is known to be greater, and therefore posterior overhang more likely to occur, with; lateral compared to medial implants, anterior cruciate ligament deficiency, and at extremes of movement. 24 medial, and 20 domed lateral, OUKRs underwent sagittal plane knee fluoroscopy during step‐up and forward lunge exercises. The bearing position was inferred from the relative position of the femoral and tibial components. Based on the individual component sizes and geometry the extent the posterior part of the bearing which overhung the posterior part of the tibial component was calculated. There was no significant posterior overhang in knees with medial implants. Knees with lateral domed implants exhibited overhang at flexion angles beyond 60°, the magnitude of which increased with increasing flexion angle, reaching a maximum of 50% of the bearing length at 140° (range 0‐140°). This demonstrates a clear difference between the kinematics, and prevalence and extent of posterior bearing overhang between medial and lateral OUKRs

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris

Background and purpose The initial outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) were poor. Furthermore, robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision are lacking. This article is the second of 2. The first article considered the various investigative modalities used during MoMHA patient surveillance (Matharu et al. 2018aMatharu G S, Judge A, Eskelinen A, Murray D W, Pandit H G. What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018a; 89 (1): 29–39.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). The present article aims to provide a clinical update regarding ARMD revision surgery in MoMHA patients (hip resurfacing and large-diameter MoM total hip arthroplasty), with specific focus on the threshold for performing ARMD revision, the surgical strategy, and the outcomes following revision. Results and interpretation The outcomes following ARMD revision surgery appear to have improved with time for several reasons, among them the introduction of regular patient surveillance and lowering of the threshold for performing revision. Furthermore, registry data suggest that outcomes following ARMD revision are influenced by modifiable factors (type of revision procedure and bearing surface implanted), meaning surgeons could potentially reduce failure rates. However, additional large multi-center studies are needed to develop robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision surgery, which will guide surgeons’ treatment of MoMHA patients. The long-term systemic effects of metal ion exposure in patients with these implants must also be investigated, which will help establish whether there are any systemic reasons to recommend revision of MoMHA

Comparison of outcomes after UKA in patients with and without chondrocalcinosis: a matched cohort study

Purpose: Chondrocalcinosis can be associated with an inflammatory arthritis and aggressive joint destruction. There is uncertainty as to whether chondrocalcinosis represents a contraindication to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study reports the outcome of a consecutive series of patients with chondrocalcinosis and medial compartment osteoarthritis treated with UKA matched to controls. Methods: Between 1998 and 2008, 88 patients with radiological chondrocalcinosis (R-CCK) and 67 patients with histological chondrocalcinosis (H-CCK) were treated for end-stage medial compartment arthritis with Oxford UKA. One-to-two matching was performed to controls, treated with UKA, but without evidence of chondrocalcinosis. Functional outcome and implant survival were assessed in each group. Results: The mean follow-up was 10 years. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at final follow-up was 43, 41 and 41 in H-CCK, R-CCK and control groups (change from baseline OKS was 21, 18 and 15, respectively). The change was significantly higher in H-CCK than in control but was not significantly different in R-CCK. Ten-year survival was 96 % in R-CCK, 86 % in H-CCK and 98 % in controls. Although the survival in H-CCK was significantly worse than in control, only one failure was due to disease progression. Conclusion: The presence of R-CCK does not influence functional outcome or survival following UKA. Pre-operative radiological evidence of CCK should not be considered to be a contraindication to UKA. H-CCK is associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes but also a higher revision rate compared with controls. Level of evidence: Case control study, Level III

The effect of smoking on outcomes following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study of 117,024 patients

Background and purpose — Smoking is a modifiable risk factor that may adversely affect postoperative outcomes. Healthcare providers are increasingly denying smokers access to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) until they stop smoking. Evidence supporting this is unclear. We assessed the effect of smoking on outcomes following arthroplasty. Patients and methods — We identified THAs and TKAs from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which were linked with datasets from Hospital Episode Statistics and the Office for National Statistics to identify outcomes. The effect of smoking on postoperative outcomes (complications, medications, revision, mortality, patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) was assessed using adjusted regression models. Results — We studied 60,812 THAs and 56,212 TKAs (11% smokers, 33% ex-smokers, 57% non-smokers). Following THA, smokers had an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and myocardial infarction compared with non-smokers and ex-smokers. Following TKA, smokers had an increased risk of LRTI compared with non-smokers. Compared with non-smokers (THA relative risk ratio [RRR] = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.61–0.69; TKA RRR = 0.82; CI = 0.78–0.86) and ex-smokers (THR RRR = 0.90; CI = 0.84–0.95), smokers had increased opioid usage 1-year postoperatively. Similar patterns were observed for weak opioids, paracetamol, and gabapentinoids. 1-year mortality rates were higher in smokers compared with non-smokers (THA hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, CI = 0.29–0.49; TKA HR = 0.52, CI = 0.34–0.81) and ex-smokers (THA HR = 0.53, CI = 0.40–0.70). Long-term revision rates were not increased in smokers. Smokers had improvement in PROMs compared with preoperatively, with no clinically important difference in postoperative PROMs between smokers, non-smokers, and ex-smokers. Interpretation — Smoking is associated with more medical complications, higher analgesia usage, and increased mortality following arthroplasty. Most adverse outcomes were reduced in ex-smokers, therefore smoking cessation should be encouraged before arthroplasty

No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions

Background Surgeons currently have difficulty when managing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). This stems from a lack of evidence, which is emphasized by the variability in the recommendations proposed by different worldwide regulatory authorities for considering MoMHA revision surgery. We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction. Methods We retrospectively studied 346 MoMHA revisions for ARMD performed at 2 European centers. Preoperative (metal ions/imaging) and intraoperative (findings, components removed/implanted) factors were used to predict poor outcomes. Poor outcomes were postoperative complications (including re-revision), 90-day mortality, and poor Oxford Hip Score. Results Poor outcomes occurred in 38.5%. Shorter time (under 4 years) to revision surgery was the only preoperative predictor of poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.12, confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-4.46). Prerevision metal ions and imaging did not influence outcomes. Single-component revisions (vs all-component revisions) increased the risk of poor outcomes (OR = 2.99, CI = 1.50-5.97). Intraoperative modifiable factors reducing the risk of poor outcomes included the posterior approach (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.10-0.49), revision head sizes ≥36 mm (vs <36 mm: OR = 0.37, CI = 0.18-0.77), ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.30, CI = 0.14-0.66), and metal-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.37, CI = 0.17-0.83). Conclusion No threshold exists for recommending revision in MoMHA patients with ARMD. However postrevision outcomes were surgeon modifiable. Optimal outcomes may be achieved if surgeons use the posterior approach, revise all MoMHA components, and use ≥36 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene or metal-on-polyethylene articulations

Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

Objectives: To assess the value for money of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) compared with total knee replacement (TKR). Design: A lifetime Markov model provided the framework for the analysis. Setting: Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales primarily informed the analysis. Participants: Propensity score matched patients in the NJR who received either a UKR or TKR. Interventions: UKR is a less invasive alternative to TKR, where only the compartment affected by osteoarthritis is replaced. Primary outcome measures: Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare system costs. Results: The provision of UKR is expected to lead to a gain in QALYs compared with TKR for all age and gender subgroups (male: <60 years: 0.12, 60–75 years: 0.20, 75+ years: 0.19; female: <60 years: 0.10, 60–75 years: 0.28, 75+ years: 0.44) and a reduction in costs (male: <60: £−1223, 60–75 years: £−1355, 75+ years: £−2005; female: <60 years: £−601, 60–75 years: £−935, 75+ years: £−1102 per patient over the lifetime). UKR is expected to lead to a reduction in QALYs compared with TKR when performed by surgeons with low UKR utilisation but an increase among those with high utilisation (<10%, median 6%: −0.04, ≥10%, median 27%: 0.26). Regardless of surgeon usage, costs associated with UKR are expected to be lower than those of TKR (<10%: £−127, ≥10%: £−758). Conclusions: UKR can be expected to generate better health outcomes and lower lifetime costs than TKR. Surgeon usage of UKR does, however, have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. To achieve the best results, surgeons need to perform a sufficient proportion of knee replacements as UKR. Low usage surgeons may therefore need to broaden their indications for UKR